difference between ccw laws
- Thread starter rohdah
- Start date
The Second Amendment does not address concealed carry.
A uniform law between the states would be just that - between the states. And will be impossible to achieve with all states.
A national permit will be federal and almost impossible to achieve. But, we must continue to try.
A uniform law between the states would be just that - between the states. And will be impossible to achieve with all states.
A national permit will be federal and almost impossible to achieve. But, we must continue to try.
I'm sorry but that still sounds like the same thing to me.
If every state had the same uniform law, then that sounds like it would be a national law and visa versa.
Every state now has a concealed carry permit law. We are all in the same country so it should not be that difficult to make a national permit law.
Crossing a state line should not make any difference.
Everybody that meets the requirements would be able to get a ccw permit.
No, the 2nd admendment does not mention concealed carry but it does say you have the right to keep and bare arms, (it does not say anything
about how) so in my opinion it should not matter. And we should not have to pay for it. It is a right not a privilege like a drivers license.
If every state had the same uniform law, then that sounds like it would be a national law and visa versa.
Every state now has a concealed carry permit law. We are all in the same country so it should not be that difficult to make a national permit law.
Crossing a state line should not make any difference.
Everybody that meets the requirements would be able to get a ccw permit.
No, the 2nd admendment does not mention concealed carry but it does say you have the right to keep and bare arms, (it does not say anything
about how) so in my opinion it should not matter. And we should not have to pay for it. It is a right not a privilege like a drivers license.
I'm ambivalent about looking to the several States vs. the Federal government for relief. The 2A community needs to think long and hard about the better strategy here.
If we concentrate on keeping gun laws at the State level we will continue to live under the mess we have today. HOWEVER, that mess that we have today was achieved one-State-at-a-time; and, now, we enjoy CC in about 40 States. That's a far cry from where we were 25 years ago.
I'll argue that we are better off defending our rights within each State and holding our ground in 25 States than we are trying to control the WH, Senate and House. In one fell swoop we could lose all our rights on some point. E.g., the new MG ban in 1989. How did that happen? THE standard-issue select-fire M-16 is no longer available for current manufacture for retail sale to the Militia? Even the dissenters in Heller agreed that we have a 2A right to such arms. (I'm not making an argument about the MG ban; I'm making a point that it's bad strategy to put all our eggs in the Federal basket.)
We are very good at coping with complex nonsense. Let's support our States right to "police" guns so we can keep the Feds out of the details.
Yes, it would be nice to have a Federal law with everything we could ever wish for; ain't going to happen. Most of us would settle for a Federal law that would put a level playing field across the 50 States. E.g., 123 hours of training, 2 merit badges and a box of GS cookies and you get a national CCP. So, suppose we got that. Then, the States would consider that a minimum. The Feds would see they can change the law and take back some of the liberty we thought we got.
I live in PA, just across the river from NJ. I would LOVE to have NJ forced to some reasonable regime. Yet, I'm thinking of the long-game; not what is convenient this year. If we can keep the States in the driver's seat then the gun grabbers can't wipe-out our 2A rights for 100 years. No free man is safe while Congress is in session.
Mark
If we concentrate on keeping gun laws at the State level we will continue to live under the mess we have today. HOWEVER, that mess that we have today was achieved one-State-at-a-time; and, now, we enjoy CC in about 40 States. That's a far cry from where we were 25 years ago.
I'll argue that we are better off defending our rights within each State and holding our ground in 25 States than we are trying to control the WH, Senate and House. In one fell swoop we could lose all our rights on some point. E.g., the new MG ban in 1989. How did that happen? THE standard-issue select-fire M-16 is no longer available for current manufacture for retail sale to the Militia? Even the dissenters in Heller agreed that we have a 2A right to such arms. (I'm not making an argument about the MG ban; I'm making a point that it's bad strategy to put all our eggs in the Federal basket.)
We are very good at coping with complex nonsense. Let's support our States right to "police" guns so we can keep the Feds out of the details.
Yes, it would be nice to have a Federal law with everything we could ever wish for; ain't going to happen. Most of us would settle for a Federal law that would put a level playing field across the 50 States. E.g., 123 hours of training, 2 merit badges and a box of GS cookies and you get a national CCP. So, suppose we got that. Then, the States would consider that a minimum. The Feds would see they can change the law and take back some of the liberty we thought we got.
I live in PA, just across the river from NJ. I would LOVE to have NJ forced to some reasonable regime. Yet, I'm thinking of the long-game; not what is convenient this year. If we can keep the States in the driver's seat then the gun grabbers can't wipe-out our 2A rights for 100 years. No free man is safe while Congress is in session.
Mark
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
You might want to reread the 2A again.
Keep and BEAR arms. What are you talking about, doesn't address conceal carry?
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Anybody that meets the requirements. The only requirement would be being alive. Those in power, state or federal, will never let that happen. No give or take, no compromise, the only thing that comes from those are losing more rights. How do you think driving became a privilege?
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
wolf_fire
New member
No we mustn't. Any more federal oversight concerning our 2nd Amendment will never be good for the people. The only reason the Federal government would ever try to make a National Carry law would be to have more control over the people. Why would you support the Federal government having more power over governing our privilege of having the 2nd Amendment. It is a right. More laws governing it makes it less and less of a right.
wolf_fire
New member
First of all, whose "requirements" are you talking about. Vermonts? They don't have a permit system at all. Maybe you are talking about NY's requirements? You think the people from AZ, TX, etc would go for having MORE requirements. The problem you don't see is that the 2nd Amendment is a right. All of these permit and license systems along with their requirements are infringements to that right. The real fight is to fight against the permit/licensing systems, not create a larger more bureaucratic one.
As for requirements I am meaning things like not having a criminal record, taking a safety training course and an age limit.
Also like I said We should not have to pay for it because it is a right not a privilege like a drivers license, which has always been a privilege!
And as far as the 2nd Admendment addressing the concealed carry, yes, I know it does not address it and that is my point, it should not matter where, when, or how we carry or (bear) our arms!
As far as the national law it shoud be about if you have a permit in one state it should good in all states because we are all in the same country and every state should have the same right.
Also like I said We should not have to pay for it because it is a right not a privilege like a drivers license, which has always been a privilege!
And as far as the 2nd Admendment addressing the concealed carry, yes, I know it does not address it and that is my point, it should not matter where, when, or how we carry or (bear) our arms!
As far as the national law it shoud be about if you have a permit in one state it should good in all states because we are all in the same country and every state should have the same right.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Someone with a criminal record can still carry a firearm.
Who decides age? What state will we base the requirement from? Some states don't allow 18 year olds carry but they can join the military. I surely hope those aren't the requirements.
I didn't have to take a safety course. Why would I want to take one now to carry a firearm? How would you purpose a required class but not have to pay for it? Nothing is free.
Driving has always been a privilege? What was it between the years of 1776 and 1913 when America didn't have a mandatory driver's license?
The 2A DOES address concealed carry. To keep and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. How is that NOT addressing it? What's your definition of bearing arms?
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
wolf_fire
New member
We all do have the same right, but the states have decided to infringe upon that right with: mandatory classes, permits, licenses, etc. A National law addressing any sort of a permit would just mire up the already existing infringements of our right. You do realize asking for permission to exercise a right no longer makes it a right, right?
A person with a criminal record such as a fellon can not legally own a gun let alone carry!
The age, anybody old enough to be in the military! I know there are a lot of stupid laws!
I said the permit should be free not the safety course!
Where does it mention concealed carry in the 2 A.? Bearing arms means to carry. It does not say how! So again, it should not matter!
What on earth are you talking about? Since when did we ever have a mandatory drivers license? What is a mandatory drivers lic.?
That's a new one! Where did you get yours?
The age, anybody old enough to be in the military! I know there are a lot of stupid laws!
I said the permit should be free not the safety course!
Where does it mention concealed carry in the 2 A.? Bearing arms means to carry. It does not say how! So again, it should not matter!
What on earth are you talking about? Since when did we ever have a mandatory drivers license? What is a mandatory drivers lic.?
That's a new one! Where did you get yours?
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
A person who has reckless driving also has a criminal record and CAN carry. The problem with any infringements, is there is too many opinions. You feel any criminal record strips away someone's rights. That will destroy the 2A.
So you don't want anyone under 18 to be able to carry a firearm? Does this go for all firearms? What if a 16 year old is working putting up fences for a farmer by himself? To bad for him? That will destroy the 2A.
But the class is required, so there is a fee associated with the permit. What about the price for your required background checks and finger prints? That will destroy the 2A.
If you haven't noticed, the 2A has all ready been destroyed.
Yes bearing arms means to carry. Concealed carrying is carrying (bearing) arms. So, the 2A does indeed cover concealed carry.
You seriously have no idea what a Right is. You call driving a privilege. Why? Because they require you to get permission to drive by getting a license. That's a mandatory license if you want to drive. You stated, it's ALWAYS been a privilege. Sorry son, before 1913 driving was NOT a privilege, we had the freedom and Right to travel. And soon, we will be saying, before 2020 the RTKBA was not a privilege, but now it is thanks to our mandatory (required) federal permit to carry.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
Federal laws can, are, and will be more strict than state laws. Laws don't tell people what they can do, they tell people what they can't do.Laws can not protect the 2A, the People have to.
Sent from my HTCONE using USA Carry mobile app
In other words, you want to restrict my rights further than they already are resitricted. Safety course? What safety course? There is no safety course required for my permit in Washington. And we don't have problems due to no safety course required, either.
Nightmare45
NRA LIFE MEMBER
We don't need no more stinking gun laws, 2nd works.
coconuisse
New member
Whatever happened to the part about "congress shall make no law......"?
Fallschirmjäger
New member
Well, does the First Amendment apply? That's the one that begins "Congress shall make no law..." and it didn't and wasn't intended to prevent the States from having an official religion as there was more than one at the time that had a state religion.
Now, the Second Amendment says, "... shall not be infringed" and is without limitation. It should apply to Congress, the Executive branch, the Judicial Branch, States, counties, cities, towns and burghs.
Unfortunately, the ""modern interpretation"" is the the First is completely incorporated and applies to Congress, the Executive branch, the Judicial Branch, States, counties, cities, towns and burghs but the Second may be restricted by all the above and any concerned third parties. Screwy, ain't it?
New Threads
-
Reloading Newbie Here—What’s the Real Cost Advantage?
- Started by michaelstrahan
- Replies: 4
-
-
Open Carry vs. Concealed Carry: Which Do You Prefer and Why?
- Started by lukem
- Replies: 1
-
How often do you practice drawing from concealment, and what drills do you use?
- Started by lukem
- Replies: 0
-
Which concealed carry holster brand or model do you trust the most, and why?
- Started by lukem
- Replies: 4
Members online
No members online now.
Forum statistics
Share this page
